In Aurora Leigh, Elizabeth Barrett Browning (EBB) famously describes how Aurora “being but poor” had to “work with one hand for the booksellers / While working with the other for [herself] / And art.” [1] Aurora’s artistic division is paradigmatic of the poet’s experience in the Victorian literary market. Few nineteenth-century writers could survive on the profits from poetry volumes alone. Instead, they supplemented their income by contributing saleable, sentimental verse to the periodical press. [2] The inescapable critical expectations placed on the female poet grew (in part) from this shift in the literary market, which required women writers to produce work aligned with both the sentimental tradition and the precepts of domestic morality in order to escape criticism. [3] EBB was no exception, and her interactions with Thackeray's Cornhill offer a unique view into the world of the literary periodical and the ways in which (female) poet's had to navigate both the demands of a periodical's editor and the expectations of the market. Illustration courtesy of University of Victoria Libraries In April 1860, EBB wrote Thackeray, offering him “A Musical Instrument” for publication in the Cornhill. Her submission included the caveat that he could return her verse with no harm done, if she “[is] not be welcome between the wind & your nobility at Cornhill.” [4] Her comment about the (un)suitability of her poem stems from recent reviews of her Poems Before Congress, which condemned her as a fallen poetess, a poetic aberration. [5] In light of such periodical reviews, readers and editors alike could view her poetry (and, more importantly, her public, poetic persona) as unsuitable for middle-class, family publications like the Cornhill. Thackeray accepted “A Musical Instrument” for publication without comment. He even made the poem a feature of the July 1860 issue, commissioning Frederick Leighton to draw an illustration for the text. However, despite this initial acceptance of EBB’s poetry, Thackeray later rejected her offer of “Lord Walter’s Wife,” confirming EBB's earlier concerns about the acceptability of her verse for the ‘noble’ Cornhill. In his 2 April 1861 letter rejecting the poem, Thackeray is quick to point out that the problem is not the poem’s scandalous content (temptation and marital infidelity), but the squeamish nature of his readership. He appeals to EBB’s domestic morality as a mother to support his editorial opinion. Positioning himself as the periodical’s paterfamilias, he implores the motherly EBB to accept his decision to protect the moral sensibilities of the periodical’s readership, which includes “not only . . . men and women, but . . . boys, girls, infants, sucklings almost” (i.e the Victorian family). [6] As Linda Shires argues, Thackeray’s rejection of EBB’s poem “illustrates how individual female poetic identity had to be negotiated through a wide set of public discourses, including those of genre: the status of and topics for poetry, those of professions: the issue of literary vocation and labour, those of sex and gender: the nature and role of women, and those of marketing: the politics of literary reputations.” [7] The narrative of their correspondence demonstrates how her literary reputation is in conflict with her gendered role as a mother and Thackeray’s need, as the periodical’s paterfamilias, to ensure the periodical’s morals for its domestic, middle-class audience. In this context, EBB’s role as mother becomes conflated with her authorial persona, demanding that she censor her poetic production and write poetry from the position of a middle-class wife and mother, conforming her poetic self and her poetry to the values of middle-class domesticity. EBB complicates Thackeray's view of motherly poetics in her 21 April 1861 response to his letter. She asks: "What if materfamilias, with her quick pure instincts and honest eyes, do more towards the their expulsion by simply looking at them & calling them by their names?" [8] She argues that the obfuscation of scandalous behavior and a woman's reaction to temptation does not solve the problem. Her letter prompts open discussion and acknowledgement of such moral and social issues. However, the established editorial agenda of the periodical preempts EBB's desire to explore sensitive topics openly and publicly (among the very social class spoken of in "Lord Walter's Wife"). [9] Nonetheless, she did send Thackeray another contribution (”Little Mattie”) “to prove that I am not sulky” [10]. A poem about a grieving mother, “Little Mattie” certainly seems to complement Thackeray's wish for a less controversial text. Yet, her warning that “it may prove too much” [11] suggests EBB’s desire to write for both herself and the booksellers, as she negotiates the editorial investment of figures like Thackeray in the literary celebrity of “Browning’s wife and Penini’s mother.” [12] -- Caley Ehnes. UVic Engl 386/2012W Notes: [1] Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh, ed. Margaret Reynolds (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996): 3: 302; 3: 303-05. [2] For further information about the economics of the Victorian literary market, see Lee Erickson, “The Market” in A Companion to Victorian Poetry, ed. Richard Cronin, Alison Chapman, and Antony H. Harrison (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2002), 345-60. [3] For further information, see Angela Leighton, Victorian Women Poets: Writing Against the Heart (Harverster Wheatsheaf, 1992). [4] Barrett Browning to Thackeray (13 April 1860) in Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom, 1847-1863, ed. Gordon N. Ray (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1985), 4:184-85. [5] See W.E. Aytoun, “Poetic Aberrations [Review of Poems Before Congress],” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine 87 (1860): 490-94. [6] Thackeray to Elizabeth Barrett Browning (2 April 1861) in Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom, 1847-1863, ed. Gordon N. Ray (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1985), 4:226-27. [7] Linda Shires, “Elizabeth Barrett Browning: Cross-Dwelling and the Reworking of Female Poetic Authority,” Victorian Literature and Culture (2002): 327. [8] Barrett Browning to Thackeray (21 April 1861) in Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom, 1847-1863, ed. Gordon N. Ray (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1985), 4:228-29. [9] See Thackeray’s letter to contributors in Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom, 1847-1863, ed. Gordon N. Ray (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1985), 4:159-61. [10] Barrett Browning to Thackeray (21 April 1860) in Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom, 4:228-29. [11] Ibid. [12] Thackeray to Elizabeth Barrett Browning (2 April 1861) in Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom, 4:227.
In April 1860, EBB wrote Thackeray, offering him “A Musical Instrument” for publication in the Cornhill. Her submission included the caveat that he could return her verse with no harm done, if she “[is] not be welcome between the wind & your nobility at Cornhill.” [4] Her comment about the (un)suitability of her poem stems from recent reviews of her Poems Before Congress, which condemned her as a fallen poetess, a poetic aberration. [5] In light of such periodical reviews, readers and editors alike could view her poetry (and, more importantly, her public, poetic persona) as unsuitable for middle-class, family publications like the Cornhill. Thackeray accepted “A Musical Instrument” for publication without comment. He even made the poem a feature of the July 1860 issue, commissioning Frederick Leighton to draw an illustration for the text. However, despite this initial acceptance of EBB’s poetry, Thackeray later rejected her offer of “Lord Walter’s Wife,” confirming EBB's earlier concerns about the acceptability of her verse for the ‘noble’ Cornhill.
In his 2 April 1861 letter rejecting the poem, Thackeray is quick to point out that the problem is not the poem’s scandalous content (temptation and marital infidelity), but the squeamish nature of his readership. He appeals to EBB’s domestic morality as a mother to support his editorial opinion. Positioning himself as the periodical’s paterfamilias, he implores the motherly EBB to accept his decision to protect the moral sensibilities of the periodical’s readership, which includes “not only . . . men and women, but . . . boys, girls, infants, sucklings almost” (i.e the Victorian family). [6] As Linda Shires argues, Thackeray’s rejection of EBB’s poem “illustrates how individual female poetic identity had to be negotiated through a wide set of public discourses, including those of genre: the status of and topics for poetry, those of professions: the issue of literary vocation and labour, those of sex and gender: the nature and role of women, and those of marketing: the politics of literary reputations.” [7] The narrative of their correspondence demonstrates how her literary reputation is in conflict with her gendered role as a mother and Thackeray’s need, as the periodical’s paterfamilias, to ensure the periodical’s morals for its domestic, middle-class audience. In this context, EBB’s role as mother becomes conflated with her authorial persona, demanding that she censor her poetic production and write poetry from the position of a middle-class wife and mother, conforming her poetic self and her poetry to the values of middle-class domesticity.
EBB complicates Thackeray's view of motherly poetics in her 21 April 1861 response to his letter. She asks: "What if materfamilias, with her quick pure instincts and honest eyes, do more towards the their expulsion by simply looking at them & calling them by their names?" [8] She argues that the obfuscation of scandalous behavior and a woman's reaction to temptation does not solve the problem. Her letter prompts open discussion and acknowledgement of such moral and social issues. However, the established editorial agenda of the periodical preempts EBB's desire to explore sensitive topics openly and publicly (among the very social class spoken of in "Lord Walter's Wife"). [9] Nonetheless, she did send Thackeray another contribution (”Little Mattie”) “to prove that I am not sulky” [10]. A poem about a grieving mother, “Little Mattie” certainly seems to complement Thackeray's wish for a less controversial text. Yet, her warning that “it may prove too much” [11] suggests EBB’s desire to write for both herself and the booksellers, as she negotiates the editorial investment of figures like Thackeray in the literary celebrity of “Browning’s wife and Penini’s mother.” [12]
-- Caley Ehnes. UVic Engl 386/2012W
Notes:
[1] Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh, ed. Margaret Reynolds (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996): 3: 302; 3: 303-05.
[2] For further information about the economics of the Victorian literary market, see Lee Erickson, “The Market” in A Companion to Victorian Poetry, ed. Richard Cronin, Alison Chapman, and Antony H. Harrison (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2002), 345-60.
[3] For further information, see Angela Leighton, Victorian Women Poets: Writing Against the Heart (Harverster Wheatsheaf, 1992).
[4] Barrett Browning to Thackeray (13 April 1860) in Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom, 1847-1863, ed. Gordon N. Ray (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1985), 4:184-85.
[5] See W.E. Aytoun, “Poetic Aberrations [Review of Poems Before Congress],” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine 87 (1860): 490-94.
[6] Thackeray to Elizabeth Barrett Browning (2 April 1861) in Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom, 1847-1863, ed. Gordon N. Ray (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1985), 4:226-27.
[7] Linda Shires, “Elizabeth Barrett Browning: Cross-Dwelling and the Reworking of Female Poetic Authority,” Victorian Literature and Culture (2002): 327.
[8] Barrett Browning to Thackeray (21 April 1861) in Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom, 1847-1863, ed. Gordon N. Ray (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1985), 4:228-29.
[9] See Thackeray’s letter to contributors in Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom, 1847-1863, ed. Gordon N. Ray (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1985), 4:159-61.
[10] Barrett Browning to Thackeray (21 April 1860) in Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom, 4:228-29.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Thackeray to Elizabeth Barrett Browning (2 April 1861) in Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom, 4:227.